Comments by ChuckD
Posted on December 2 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bravo Dr. Spring, even if you only get baby steps out of 'em.
And bravo to the Gazette for the coverage. There's a much bigger story here than our otherwise mainstream media would have us believe.
Posted on December 1 at 8:20 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted on November 29 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it's a little creepy that this business started out as a Planet Fitness and seemed to overnight change into a gun shop, and that there's been no public discussion about it.
Posted on November 26 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another local news service reported the horse survived and was taken away in a horse trailer.
You're welcome, Gazette!
Posted on November 26 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just my $.02:
Regardless of sexual orientation, engaging in a close, personal relationship with a coworker is usually a bad idea. especially if it's a superior/subordinate one. Sorry Mr. O'Connor, sounds like a bad choice to me, regardless of your sexual orientation. Sure hope you're not using your minority status to bolster your argument.
Posted on November 24 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Agree with the sentiment of the writer, but the kid sounds like a bundle of bad choices. And who's the grown-up enabling him? A lawyer, of course. Not to impugn the entire profession, but who's the real perp now? Or are lawyers untouchable?
Posted on November 23 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Judge Treece, if you think it's "not excessive" for someone to show up at their probation officer at 10:45am and blow a .042, I suggest someone ought to take a close look at your ties to the perp and your drinking habits as well.
Here's some help, that's a huge red flag, ok?
Brings new meaning to having friends in high places.
Posted on November 21 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On disability? Who's paying for that? He sounds able-bodied to me.
Posted on November 18 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"fallacious argumentum ad populum"?
I'll believe a room full of scientists over one of flat-earthers with a conflict of interest any day when it comes to ...science. You wouldn't? How do you feel about the whole dinosaurs hunted by humans thing?
And there's nothing wrong with wikipedia *as a supplement* to research. Of course it's not the final word on a subject but it's a valuable tool. The internet's a confusing place sometimes, eh? In this case the only counter arguments I could find to Cook used hysterical terms like "annihilation" and "gross manipulation of data" and "still reeling from the intellectual slap down(sic)"...oops, your words too. Sorry. That doesn't help your credibility though.
I think you should stick to Achilles Arena with your very mature trash talk.
Posted on November 18 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
albright1+, you sound like a real tool:
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. Also, a reply to the criticism of the study was published, saying: "[critic] believes that every paper discussing the impacts of climate change should be placed in the 'no opinion' category".